On November 21, 2018 1:41:37 PM GMT+01:00, Victoria Anosova
wrote:
>For v4.9 your first fix (
>https://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2016/02/26/299) helped.
Can you please not top-post? Thx.
That old version is not quite right - see the commit message of the current fix.
HTH.
--
Sent from
On November 21, 2018 1:41:37 PM GMT+01:00, Victoria Anosova
wrote:
>For v4.9 your first fix (
>https://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2016/02/26/299) helped.
Can you please not top-post? Thx.
That old version is not quite right - see the commit message of the current fix.
HTH.
--
Sent from
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11:18AM +0500, Victoria Anosova wrote:
> Glad this come to kernel. We've already applied this patch.
The current version, with the bottom half toggling or the original one
with preempt_disable/enable?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11:18AM +0500, Victoria Anosova wrote:
> Glad this come to kernel. We've already applied this patch.
The current version, with the bottom half toggling or the original one
with preempt_disable/enable?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:25:30PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [This is an automated email]
>
> This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag.
> The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: all
>
> The bot has tested the following trees:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:25:30PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [This is an automated email]
>
> This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag.
> The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: all
>
> The bot has tested the following trees:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 05:04:10PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> The sequence
>fpu->initialized = 1; /* step A */
>preempt_disable(); /* step B */
>fpu__restore(fpu);
>preempt_enable();
>
> is racy in regard to a context switch.
> For 32bit frames __fpu__restore_sig()
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 05:04:10PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> The sequence
>fpu->initialized = 1; /* step A */
>preempt_disable(); /* step B */
>fpu__restore(fpu);
>preempt_enable();
>
> is racy in regard to a context switch.
> For 32bit frames __fpu__restore_sig()
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 06:31:36PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> I though about __fpregs_changes_begin() in the last patch of the commit:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bigeasy/staging.git/commit/?h=x86_fpu_rtu_v4
Also a good spot - api.h talks about preemption
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 06:31:36PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> I though about __fpregs_changes_begin() in the last patch of the commit:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bigeasy/staging.git/commit/?h=x86_fpu_rtu_v4
Also a good spot - api.h talks about preemption
On 11/19/18 9:27 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> I was really hoping for code comments. :)
>> I though we agreed to make those in the larger series because those
>> comments in __fpu__restore_sig() would be removed anyway (as part of the
>> series).
> Also, over local_bh_disable() does not really
On 11/19/18 9:27 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> I was really hoping for code comments. :)
>> I though we agreed to make those in the larger series because those
>> comments in __fpu__restore_sig() would be removed anyway (as part of the
>> series).
> Also, over local_bh_disable() does not really
On 2018-11-19 18:27:43 [+0100], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 06:11:29PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2018-11-19 09:02:45 [-0800], Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On 11/19/18 8:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > v1…v2: A more verbose commit as message.
>
On 2018-11-19 18:27:43 [+0100], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 06:11:29PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2018-11-19 09:02:45 [-0800], Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On 11/19/18 8:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > v1…v2: A more verbose commit as message.
>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 06:11:29PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-11-19 09:02:45 [-0800], Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 11/19/18 8:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > v1…v2: A more verbose commit as message.
> >
> > I was really hoping for code comments. :)
>
> I though
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 06:11:29PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-11-19 09:02:45 [-0800], Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 11/19/18 8:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > v1…v2: A more verbose commit as message.
> >
> > I was really hoping for code comments. :)
>
> I though
On 11/19/18 8:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> v1…v2: A more verbose commit as message.
I was really hoping for code comments. :)
On 11/19/18 8:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> v1…v2: A more verbose commit as message.
I was really hoping for code comments. :)
On 2018-11-19 09:02:45 [-0800], Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/19/18 8:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > v1…v2: A more verbose commit as message.
>
> I was really hoping for code comments. :)
I though we agreed to make those in the larger series because those
comments in
On 2018-11-19 09:02:45 [-0800], Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/19/18 8:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > v1…v2: A more verbose commit as message.
>
> I was really hoping for code comments. :)
I though we agreed to make those in the larger series because those
comments in
The sequence
fpu->initialized = 1; /* step A */
preempt_disable();/* step B */
fpu__restore(fpu);
preempt_enable();
is racy in regard to a context switch.
For 32bit frames __fpu__restore_sig() prepares the FPU state within
fpu->state. To ensure that a context switch
The sequence
fpu->initialized = 1; /* step A */
preempt_disable();/* step B */
fpu__restore(fpu);
preempt_enable();
is racy in regard to a context switch.
For 32bit frames __fpu__restore_sig() prepares the FPU state within
fpu->state. To ensure that a context switch
22 matches
Mail list logo
